Tissue versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in younger patients: A multicenter analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to examine the long-term survival of patients between the ages of 50 and 65 years who underwent tissue versus mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in a multicenter cohort. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective analysis of all AVR patients (n = 9388) from 1991 to 2015 among 7 medical centers reporting to a prospectively maintained clinical registry was conducted. Inclusion criteria were: patients aged 50 to 65 years who underwent isolated AVR. Baseline comorbidities were balanced using inverse probability weighting for a study cohort of 1449 AVRs: 840 tissue and 609 mechanical. The primary end point of the analysis was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points included in-hospital morbidity, 30-day mortality, length of stay, and risk of reoperation. RESULTS: During the study period, there was a significant shift from mechanical to tissue valves (P < .001). There was no significant difference in major in-hospital morbidity, mortality, or length of hospitalization. Also, there was no significant difference in adjusted 15-year survival between mechanical versus tissue valves (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.13; P = .29), although tissue valves were associated with a higher risk of reoperation with a cumulative incidence of 19.1% (95% CI, 14.4%-24.3%) versus 3.0% (95% CI, 1.7%-4.9%) for mechanical valves. The reoperative 30-day mortality rate was 2.4% (n = 2) for the series. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients 50 to 65 years old who underwent AVR, there was no difference in adjusted long-term survival according to prosthesis type, but tissue valves were associated with a higher risk of reoperation.

Surgical Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Improves Long-Term Survival: A Multicenter Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons guidelines recommend surgical ablation (SA) at the time of concomitant mitral operations, aortic valve replacement, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and aortic valve replacement plus CABG for patients in atrial fibrillation (AF). The goal of this analysis was to assess the influence of SA on long-term survival. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 20,407 consecutive CABG or valve procedures from 2008 to 2015 among seven centers reporting to a prospectively maintained clinical registry was conducted. Patients undergoing operation with documented preoperative AF were included (n = 2,740). Patients receiving SA were compared with patients receiving no SA. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points included in-hospital morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: The frequency of SA was 23.1% (n = 634), and an increase was seen in the rate of SA over the study period (p < 0.001). Concomitant SA was performed in 16.2% of CABG, 30.6% of valve, and 24.3% of valve plus CABG procedures. A substantial improvement was found in unadjusted survival among patients undergoing SA (hazard ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval: 0.42 to 0.70). Moreover, no differences were found in postoperative complications. SA did have longer bypass times (p < 0.001) but a shorter overall length of stay (p < 0.001). After risk adjustment, SA patients had an improved 5-year survival (hazard ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval: 0.51 to 0.92), and the effect was observed across all operations. CONCLUSIONS: In a multicenter cohort of patients with AF, concomitant SA resulted in substantially improved long-term survival across patients who underwent CABG, valve, and valve plus CABG. These findings support current guidelines from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons that recommend broader application of concomitant SA.

Comparative effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in a real-world Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure trial population.

OBJECTIVE: There are no prospective randomized trial data to guide decisions on optimal revascularization strategies for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and reduced ejection fraction. In this analysis, we describe the comparative effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in this patient population. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective analysis of all CABG (n = 18,292) and PCIs (n = 55,438) performed from 2004 to 2014 among 7 medical centers reporting to the Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria from the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure trial, there were 955 CABG and 718 PCI patients with an ejection fraction ≤ 35% and 2- or 3-vessel disease. Inverse probability weighting was used for risk adjustment. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points included rates of 30-day mortality, stroke, acute kidney injury, and incidence of repeat revascularization. RESULTS: The median duration of follow-up was 4.3 years (range, 1.59-6.71 years). CABG was associated with improved long-term survival compared with PCI after risk adjustment (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.71; P < .01). Although CABG and PCI had similar 30-day mortality rates (P = .14), CABG was associated with a higher frequency of stroke (P < .001) and acute kidney injury (P < .001), whereas PCI was associated with a higher incidence of repeat revascularization (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with reduced ejection fraction and multivessel disease, CABG was associated with improved long-term survival compared with PCI. CABG should be strongly considered in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and multivessel coronary disease.

Coronary Revascularization With Single Versus Bilateral Mammary Arteries: Is It Time to Change?

BACKGROUND: Arterial conduits are preferred to venous conduits for coronary artery bypass grafting because of longer patency. A single internal mammary artery (SIMA) is used routinely. Bilateral internal mammary arteries (BIMA) are used less frequently. We sought to determine whether BIMA were superior to SIMA. METHODS: From our regional registry of consecutive open heart operations, we identified 47,984 patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting from 1992 to 2014. Of the 1,482 BIMA patients, 1,297 were propensity matched to a cohort of SIMA patients. Short-term outcomes were compared using standard statistical techniques. Long-term survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier estimators and compared using a log-rank test. RESULTS: BIMA patients were younger and had fewer comorbid conditions than SIMA patients. After propensity weighting, BIMA and SIMA patients were well matched. There was no difference in in-hospital outcomes for BIMA versus SIMA patients for mortality (1.2% [n = 15] vs 0.8% [n = 10], p = 0.315), stroke (0.7% [n = 9] vs 0.7% [n = 9), p = 1.000), bleeding (2.2% [n = 28] vs 2.8% [n = 36], p = 0.311), or mediastinitis (0.8% [n = 10] vs 0.9% [n = 12], p = 0.667). The median follow-up was 12 years. Survival was better for BIMA than SIMA (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.91; p < 0.001). Survival curves began to separate after 5 years. At 15 years, the absolute difference in survival was 8.4%. CONCLUSIONS: In a large regional experience, BIMA is associated with no upfront risk of adverse events and improved long-term survival compared with SIMA. Our results indicate that BIMA conduits should be considered more frequently during coronary artery bypass grafting due to their demonstrated survival advantage.

Should Diabetes Be a Contraindication to Bilateral Internal Mammary Artery Grafting?

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the influence of bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) versus single internal mammary artery (SIMA) grafting on postoperative morbidity and long-term survival among diabetic patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective analysis of 47,984 consecutive CABGs performed from 1992 to 2014 at 7 medical centers was conducted. Among the study population, 1,482 CABGs with BIMA were identified, and 1,297 BIMA patients were propensity-matched to 1,297 SIMA patients. The study cohort for this analysis, drawn from matched data, included 430 diabetic patients: 217 SIMA and 213 BIMA. The primary endpoint was long-term survival. Secondary endpoints included postoperative morbidity, length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: The median duration of follow-up was 9.3 (range, 4.3 to 13.9) years. Among propensity-matched diabetic patients, there was no significant difference in age, body mass index, or major baseline comorbidities. The groups were also well matched on the number of diseased coronary arteries and number of distal anastomoses performed. There was no difference in the rate of mediastinitis or sternal dehiscence (p = 0.503) or in-hospital mortality (p = 0.758) between groups. Both groups had a similar median length of stay of 5 (range, 4 to 7) days. Diabetic patients who received a BIMA had significantly improved long-term survival when compared with SIMA patients (hazard ratio 0.75 [95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.98], p = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Among diabetics undergoing CABG, use of BIMA grafting does not result in increased in-hospital morbidity or mortality and confers a long-term survival advantage when compared with SIMA grafting. Thus, diabetic patients should be considered for BIMA grafting more frequently.

Does Use of Bilateral Internal Mammary Artery Grafting Reduce Long-Term Risk of Repeat Coronary Revascularization? A Multicenter Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although previous studies have demonstrated that patients receiving bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) conduits during coronary artery bypass grafting have better long-term survival than those receiving a single internal mammary artery (SIMA), data on risk of repeat revascularization are more limited. In this analysis, we compare the timing, frequency, and type of repeat coronary revascularization among patients receiving BIMA and SIMA. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective analysis of 47 984 consecutive coronary artery bypass grafting surgeries performed from 1992 to 2014 among 7 medical centers reporting to a prospectively maintained clinical registry. Among the study population, 1482 coronary artery bypass grafting surgeries with BIMA were identified, and 1297 patients receiving BIMA were propensity-matched to 1297 patients receiving SIMA. The primary end point was freedom from repeat coronary revascularization. RESULTS: The median duration of follow-up was 13.2 (IQR, 7.4-17.7) years. Patients were well matched by age, body mass index, major comorbidities, and cardiac function. There was a higher freedom from repeat revascularization among patients receiving BIMA than among patients receiving SIMA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65-0.94]; P=0.009). Among the matched cohort, 19.4% (n=252) of patients receiving SIMA underwent repeat revascularization, whereas this frequency was 15.1% (n=196) among patients receiving BIMA (P=0.004). The majority of repeat revascularization procedures were percutaneous coronary interventions (94.2%), and this did not differ between groups (P=0.274). Groups also did not differ in the ratio of native versus graft vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (P=0.899), or regarding percutaneous coronary intervention target vessels; the most common targets in both groups were the right coronary (P=0.133) and circumflex arteries (P=0.093). In comparison with SIMA, BIMA grafting was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality at 12 years of follow-up (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.69-0.91]; P=0.001), and there was no difference in in-hospital morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: BIMA grafting was associated with a reduced risk of repeat revascularization and an improvement in long-term survival and should be considered more frequently during coronary artery bypass grafting.

Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery I: Patient Selection, Evaluation, and Planning.

Widespread adoption of minimally invasive mitral valve repair and replacement may be fostered by practice consensus and standardization. This expert opinion, first of a 3-part series, outlines current best practices in patient evaluation and selection for minimally invasive mitral valve procedures, and discusses preoperative planning for cannulation and myocardial protection.

Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery II: Surgical Technique and Postoperative Management.

Techniques for minimally invasive mitral valve repair and replacement continue to evolve. This expert opinion, the second of a 3-part series, outlines current best practices for nonrobotic, minimally invasive mitral valve procedures, and for postoperative care after minimally invasive mitral valve surgery.

Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery III: Training and Robotic-Assisted Approaches.

Minimally invasive mitral valve operations are increasingly common in the United States, but robotic-assisted approaches have not been widely adopted for a variety of reasons. This expert opinion reviews the state of the art and defines best practices, training, and techniques for developing a successful robotics program.

Early degeneration of a bioprosthetic mitral valve complicated by a large left atrial thrombus.

The authors report the case of a patient with symptomatic early bioprosthetic mitral valve deterioration in the setting of calcium supplementation. This was further complicated by a large left atrial thrombus despite supratherapeutic anticoagulation and a previously oversewn left atrial appendage. As mechanical valves are less predisposed to calcification in comparison with bioprosthetic implants, the patient underwent a mechanical mitral valve replacement in addition to a left atrial thrombectomy.

Detection and elimination of microemboli related to cardiopulmonary bypass.

BACKGROUND: Neurobehavioral impairment is a common complication of coronary bypass surgery. Cerebral microemboli during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) are a principal mechanism of cognitive injury. The aim of this work was to study the occurrence of cerebral embolism during CPB and to evaluate the effectiveness of evidence-based CPB circuit component and process changes on the exposure of the patient to emboli. METHODS AND RESULTS: M-Mode Doppler was used to detect emboli in the inflow and outflow of cardiopulmonary circuit and in the right and left middle cerebral arteries. Doppler signals were merged into a single display to allow real-time associations between discrete clinical techniques and emboli detection. One hundred sixty-nine isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients were studied between 2002 and 2008. There was no statistical difference in median microemboli detected in the inflow of the CPB circuit, (Phase I, 931; Phase II, 1214; Phase III, 1253; Phase IV, 1125; F [3,158]=0.8, P=0.96). Significant changes occurred in median microemboli detected in the outflow of the CPB circuit across phases, (Phase I, 702; Phase II, 572; Phase III, 596; Phase IV, 85; F [3,157]=13.1, P<0.001). Significant changes also occurred in median microemboli detected in the brain across phases, (Phase I, 604; Phase II, 429; Phase III, 407; Phase IV, 138; F [3,153]=14.4, P<0.001). Changes in the cardiopulmonary bypass circuit were associated with an 87.9% (702 versus 85) reduction in median microemboli in the outflow of the CPB circuit (P<0.001), and a 77.2% (604 versus 146) reduction in microemboli in the brain (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in CPB techniques and circuit components, including filter size and type of pump, resulted in a reduction in more than 75% of cerebral microemboli.

Appropriateness of coronary artery bypass graft surgery performed in northern New England.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the concordance between the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) 2004 Guideline Update for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery and actual clinical practice. BACKGROUND: There is substantial geographic variability in the population-based rates of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures, and in recent years, there have been several public concerns about unnecessary cardiac care. The actual rate of inappropriate cardiac procedures is unknown. METHODS: We evaluated 4,684 consecutive isolated coronary artery bypass graft procedures performed in 2004 and 2005 in northern New England. Our regional registry data were used to categorize patients into clinical subgroups. Detailed clinical criteria were then used to categorize procedures within these subgroups as class I (useful and effective), class IIa (evidence favors usefulness), class IIb (evidence less well established), and class III (not useful or effective). RESULTS: Among these 4,684 procedures, we were able to classify 99.6% (n = 4,665). The majority of procedures were class I (87.7%). Class II procedures totaled 10.9%. The remaining 1.4% of procedures were class III. CONCLUSIONS: In this regional study, we found that 98.6% of CABG procedures that could be classified were considered to be appropriate. In these data, actual clinical practice closely follows the recommendations of the 2004 ACC/AHA guidelines for CABG surgery.

Comparison of three measurements of cardiac surgery mortality for the Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the optimal period during which to assess death after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Three measures are commonly used: in-hospital, 30-day, and procedural (either in-hospital or 30-day) mortality. We used a regional database to calculate the CABG mortality rate using each of these mortality measures. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively on 31,592 consecutive isolated CABG surgeries in northern New England between January 1992 and December 2001. These data were linked to the National Death Index to obtain vital status through December 2001, and used to calculate 30-day and procedural mortality rates. Procedural mortality was defined as death occurring either within the hospital setting or within 30 days of the index procedure. Regional registry data were used to calculate in-hospital mortality rates. RESULTS: Mortality rates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated. In all but one medical center, the in-hospital mortality was the lowest rate, while in all centers the procedural mortality rate was the highest. There were 1,082 deaths captured by the procedural mortality measure. Of these, 927 were included in the in-hospital mortality measure; 956 occurred within 30 days of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Each of the measures studied has its advantages and may be used to assess the mortality outcomes of cardiac surgery. The more important issue other than the specific measure used is our ability to measure and validate it conveniently and accurately in actual practice.

Comparing long-term survival of patients with multivessel coronary disease after CABG or PCI: analysis of BARI-like patients in northern New England.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials comparing coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) with percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) for patients with multivessel coronary disease (MVD) report similar long-term survival for CABG and PCI. These studies used a highly selected population of patients and providers, and their results may not be generalizable to actual care. Our goal in this study was to compare long-term survival of MVD patients treated with CABG vs PCI in contemporary practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: From our northern New England registries of consecutive coronary revascularizations, we identified 10,198 CABG and 4,295 PCI patients with MVD who may have been eligible for either procedure between 1994 and 2001. Vital status was obtained by linkage to the National Death Index. Proportional-hazards regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for survival in CABG vs PCI patients after adjustment for comorbidities and disease characteristics. CABG patients were older; had more comorbidities, more 3-vessel disease, and lower ejection fractions; and were more completely revascularized. Adjusted long-term survival for patients with 3-vessel disease was better after CABG than PCI (HR, 0.60; P<0.01) but not for patients with 2-vessel disease (HR, 0.98; P=0.77). The survival advantage of CABG for 3-vessel disease patients was present in all patient populations, including women, diabetics, and the elderly and in the era of high stent utilization. CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary practice, survival for patients with 3-vessel coronary disease is better after CABG than PCI, an observation that patients and physicians should carefully consider when deciding on a revascularization strategy.